IndianInMoscow

"Johnny Rotten may have been the Sex Pistols' frontman, but once Glen Matlock was replaced by Sid Vicious, the bassist became as synonymous with the group – and punk in general -– as Rotten. However, he wasn't always a standard bearer for controversy, and this insightful film reveals how John Simon Ritchie became one of the scene's most infamous figures. Featuring previously unseen footage and interviews with a range of people from his life, from childhood friends to band colleagues, this documentary builds a more in-depth picture of an iconic figure."

Sounds like it will be worth a watch.

Queen Boo

Wasn't Sid like, functionally retarded?

sweet_nothing

And a murderer.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

He was all of the above, but he is etched in the minds of the British population as being the image of punk.

James

A friend of mine watched this and it made her cry.

Queen Boo

Does this mean its you?

James

No, I think he's an ******* with no talent. But she was all like "He was such a tortured soul" and crying.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Slightly unrelated rant but I'm not so sure I'd agree with the man being talentless.

Talentless? Naw, I think the Sex Pistols deserve a bit more credit for coming up with some elements of sound which were generally unheard of before. Even if they were sloppy, and untechnical and such(and really, this is punk, and early punk so what do you expect?). The talent came though in their ability to distinguish themselves from anything around them when it comes to sound/image. I'd say in that regard, he's quite talented.

However, when you really think of it, Sex Pistols were one of the worst things to happen to punk. Before them, punk was simply a group of bands who played outside of the industry's rules.

Essentially, they were nothing more than indy bands. They were given the name 'punk' as reference to the prison concept of a 'punk bitch' as sort of a derogatory insult by an elitist media. The reason why punk was even cool was because they played completely outside the boundaries of the industry.

What the Sex Pistols, and a lot of the British punk movement, did at the time kind of took away the point when they spent so much time streamlining what punk was supposed to be. They made it a fashion statement, and a trend. They made it a cult, and a club. Not a club built of people who just appreciated free spirited "kids" trying to play their own rock n' roll, but a very scarily elitist folks who only believed you were "real" if you stuck a stickpin in your anus.

Essentially, where as "punk" before things like the Sex Pistols was simply a bunch of people playing their own rock outside of industry rules and standards, Sex Pistols protested the industry by sort of inventing their own little industry outside of it. One that eventually was simply assimilated into the bigger industry.

Thus the reason why punk has become such a trendy over marketed sound, and a band like Greenday(Like them or no, they are pretty much just a catchy pop band) can be considered a respectful nod to the point. Sex Pistols were MAJOR violators in shifting punk from what it originally meant to it's commercial incarnation of today.

Suppose, with that known, the industry itself makes tons of money off of their assimilated streamlined rendition of punk. With the fact that there are in fact even some ditzy teenie boppers who buy into the prepackaged mythos of Sex Pistols(I know this as fact) of course they're going to try to market Sid Viscious as a "great great man". For them, and for the selection stoner skaters who are are still sitting around and going "Man, Kurt Cobain was like Ghandi meets Jesus Christ" who somehow latch onto punk as their own.

James

I love the sex pistols, but that's because of John Lydon. Sid was hardly essential to their sound.

Unknown Soldier

You start off by saying, that you don`t agree with the observations that Sid Vicious was talentless! Instead of defending your belief about Sid, you go off on a tangent about the Sex Pistols!